RE: Bitmaps vs vectors (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames



Message

doctormm -> RE: Bitmaps vs vectors (5/9/2007 5:58:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

I had been assuming that the CA Sumatra was captured and was now owned by the CW at teh start of Guadalcanal. It appears you think that is incorrect.


Indeed, there should be no scenario in MWiF where the Netherlands is completely conquered.



That's more or less what I was getting at. The problem is, based on the original Guadalcanal scenario, The Netherlands are conquered. This has not been updated to reflect the "new reality" faced when using the AiF maps (paper game) or MWiF.

Given that, the Ne ships are still minor country units, and that brings into play the issue of cooperation.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Bitmaps vs vectors (5/9/2007 10:38:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: doctormm
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
quote:

I had been assuming that the CA Sumatra was captured and was now owned by the CW at teh start of Guadalcanal. It appears you think that is incorrect.


Indeed, there should be no scenario in MWiF where the Netherlands is completely conquered.


That's more or less what I was getting at. The problem is, based on the original Guadalcanal scenario, The Netherlands are conquered. This has not been updated to reflect the "new reality" faced when using the AiF maps (paper game) or MWiF.

Given that, the Ne ships are still minor country units, and that brings into play the issue of cooperation.

This is all corrected now.

For Guadalcanal, MWIF aligns the Netherlands to the CW and then has Germany conquer it. Japan conquers the NEI and the program sets the new home country for the Netherlands as the United Kingdom. Lastly, I have the specific naval units that are mentioned in the setup moved from conquered status to the force pool, where the program can find them during setup.

CWIF (and now MWIF) has the correct code for working out whether a country was completely conquered or not, based on whether it has any controlled minors that are still unconquered. That is dynamic and can be used throughout the game, in addition to during setup.

I am moving all the naval units that appear in the setups for conquered countries into force pools. Besides Norway, Denmark, et al, there are also the French units which have to be reassigned to Vichy France or Free France.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Bitmaps vs vectors (5/9/2007 12:16:24 PM)

Patrice has provided data (and bitmaps) for the new/revised units from teh 2007 counter sheets. I'll try to post screen s shots of them all over the next couple of days.

Here are the warlords.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/2ECB85A607EE448094EDC769AD0858F7.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Bitmaps vs vectors (5/9/2007 12:18:00 PM)

Here are some of the city based volunteers. Note that the Year entry gives the unit's city (e,g., Algiers)

[image]local://upfiles/16701/5820B736B28246F69BD5E91294E8AF8B.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Bitmaps vs vectors (5/9/2007 12:19:06 PM)

3rd and last in the series. Some more city based volunteers.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/EFBFC523A0AB44418BFB38AC82E0CFFD.jpg[/image]



mlees -> RE: Bitmaps vs vectors (5/9/2007 5:19:44 PM)

quote:

I am moving all the naval units that appear in the setups for conquered countries into force pools. Besides Norway, Denmark, et al, there are also the French units which have to be reassigned to Vichy France or Free France.


Hmm. Are you leaving out (scrap pool) naval units that have historical sunk dates that are prior (earlier) than the scenario start date?

If I recall, in CWiF, if a unit is destroyed, I am prompted with a choice of whether or not to scrap a unit. I (as a personal house rule) automatically scrap all named units (why rebuild the SCS Wyoming anyway?), but I get to decide whether or not to scrap a particular TRS or Sub unit.

However, for captured/conquered units, I don't think it is realistic that such a unit is returned to the force pool to be (potentially) rebuilt, sub/TRS or not.

For example: NEI becomes (and remains) incompletely conquered. The CW player gets control of a Dutch TRS. That unit is later sunk in naval combat. Can that unit be returned to the (CW) force pool?

Example 2: Germany captured the Java, when it was overrun in Amsterdam. The Java is now a German SCS unit, and placed in the repair pool. The German player repairs it. It is later sunk while trying to raid the convoys in the Atlantic. Does this unit automatically get scrapped, or could the German readd it to his force pool, to be rebuilt if desired? (Im not asking whether the German player should readd it, I'm asking whether he can...)

Edit: My apologies if this is too off topic...



Froonp -> RE: Bitmaps vs vectors (5/9/2007 7:02:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Here are some of the city based volunteers. Note that the Year entry gives the unit's city (e,g., Algiers)

I think that, for this to be better, the inside boxes of the CBV who are controlled by major powers should be of the color of the minor country they originate from.
Example : The Russian "Bucharest" CBV INF should have the Rumanian inside box color.



Froonp -> RE: Bitmaps vs vectors (5/9/2007 7:06:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees
Hmm. Are you leaving out (scrap pool) naval units that have historical sunk dates that are prior (earlier) than the scenario start date?

If I recall, in CWiF, if a unit is destroyed, I am prompted with a choice of whether or not to scrap a unit. I (as a personal house rule) automatically scrap all named units (why rebuild the SCS Wyoming anyway?), but I get to decide whether or not to scrap a particular TRS or Sub unit.

However, for captured/conquered units, I don't think it is realistic that such a unit is returned to the force pool to be (potentially) rebuilt, sub/TRS or not.

For example: NEI becomes (and remains) incompletely conquered. The CW player gets control of a Dutch TRS. That unit is later sunk in naval combat. Can that unit be returned to the (CW) force pool?

Example 2: Germany captured the Java, when it was overrun in Amsterdam. The Java is now a German SCS unit, and placed in the repair pool. The German player repairs it. It is later sunk while trying to raid the convoys in the Atlantic. Does this unit automatically get scrapped, or could the German readd it to his force pool, to be rebuilt if desired? (Im not asking whether the German player should readd it, I'm asking whether he can...)

A question similar to this was already asked ans is in our list of frequently asked questions :

Question :
When a naval unit is captured and then later destroyed who chooses if it is scrapped or not, and whose force pool does it go back to?

Harry's Answer :
It goes back into the current owner’s (i.e. the capturer’s) force pool. Date: 30/07/97



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Bitmaps vs vectors (5/9/2007 7:45:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Here are some of the city based volunteers. Note that the Year entry gives the unit's city (e,g., Algiers)

I think that, for this to be better, the inside boxes of the CBV who are controlled by major powers should be of the color of the minor country they originate from.
Example : The Russian "Bucharest" CBV INF should have the Rumanian inside box color.

Ok. I'll try to get to that today - it's easy.



Froonp -> RE: Bitmaps vs vectors (5/9/2007 7:49:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I think that, for this to be better, the inside boxes of the CBV who are controlled by major powers should be of the color of the minor country they originate from.
Example : The Russian "Bucharest" CBV INF should have the Rumanian inside box color.

Ok. I'll try to get to that today - it's easy.

Great.
I noticed that this is the way they are done on the countersheets.



mlees -> RE: Bitmaps vs vectors (5/9/2007 9:31:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

A question similar to this was already asked ans is in our list of frequently asked questions :

Question :
When a naval unit is captured and then later destroyed who chooses if it is scrapped or not, and whose force pool does it go back to?

Harry's Answer :
It goes back into the current owner’s (i.e. the capturer’s) force pool. Date: 30/07/97


"Our" list of FAQ's? Urm, from '97? Is this in your Yahoo discussion group? (Sorry to be so dense...)



Froonp -> RE: Bitmaps vs vectors (5/9/2007 10:20:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees
"Our" list of FAQ's? Urm, from '97? Is this in your Yahoo discussion group? (Sorry to be so dense...)

Well, since late 1996 when WiF FE came out, there were 2-3 years that had Harry Rowland the main designer of WiF FE subscribed to the WiF List. During these 1997-1999 years, he issued a lot of clarifications, that were assembled in a large PDF document in october 1998. Then, in early 99 the clarifications stopped, Harry had to move to something else.

Then, in 2000 & 2004 there were attempt by people from the WiF List to clean the clarification document to only keep what was still relevant (RAW had changed since the questions were asked, so some questions were now answered in RAW).

Then in late 2006 there was the start of an attempt by Peter Kanjorski and a group of people to regroup all rule problems / rule questions that we could have in a document that we intended to bring in front of Harry for him to clarify the answers, so that the MWiF game follows the rule the closest to the designer's intend possible.

This document was maded from the latest FAQ, adding all still relevant questions from the Clarifications document, adding new questions found here and there. This is this document that I called "our FAQ". It is not yet public, and still has to be brought in front of Harry, who agreed to have a look at it. It is in Excel form, and it will be trivial to put it into a text form with the question and the answer from Harry for each question.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Bitmaps vs vectors (5/10/2007 12:32:59 AM)

Patrice,

Just for clarity, how about referring to this as the MWIF Rules Clarification List?



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Bitmaps vs vectors (5/10/2007 1:25:53 AM)

Here are many (but not all) of the City Based Volunteers.

The colors for the interior symbol (outline and center) are based on the 'country' that controls the city at the beginning of the war.

So, Vladivostok is based on Siberians colors, not the USSR colors. Likewise, Vlassov is using Ukrainian colors (for Kiev).

I also changed the outline color for the interior symbol to black or white if it was the same as the owning country. The interior of the USA's Naples garrison is actually Italian green, though visually that is hard to believe.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/49530B3B01E74E65A85D35DFED31FD57.jpg[/image]



lomyrin -> RE: Bitmaps vs vectors (5/10/2007 1:42:33 AM)

Looks good but...

Should not Manila be US green and Calcutta and INA CW blue ?

Batavia shown as Japanese ?

SS Holland not in NE colors ?

Oslo not Norway color ?

Algiers not French ?

Am I confused ?

Lars 



Froonp -> RE: Bitmaps vs vectors (5/10/2007 2:00:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here are many (but not all) of the City Based Volunteers.

The colors for the interior symbol (outline and center) are based on the 'country' that controls the city at the beginning of the war.

So, Vladivostok is based on Siberians colors, not the USSR colors. Likewise, Vlassov is using Ukrainian colors (for Kiev).

I also changed the outline color for the interior symbol to black or white if it was the same as the owning country. The interior of the USA's Naples garrison is actually Italian green, though visually that is hard to believe.

Looks good to me [:D]. I love those CBV !!!



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Bitmaps vs vectors (5/10/2007 2:47:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
Looks good but...

Should not Manila be US green and Calcutta and INA CW blue ?

Batavia shown as Japanese ?

SS Holland not in NE colors ?

Oslo not Norway color ?

Algiers not French ?

Am I confused ?

Lars 

I checked some of these you asked about and they are correct.

The interior colors are based on the country that owns the city. The priamry color for the unit is based on the owning major power.

So the Netherlands unit that volunteers to work for the SS has a black priamry color and a red/white interior like normal Netherlands units.


[image]local://upfiles/16701/FCC045CD23CA49E1B15C5A552C793ED3.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Bitmaps vs vectors (5/10/2007 2:48:43 AM)

Antoerh example, what the normal Algerian unit looks like.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/9C2C1CC105EC45EBA8668305BF0ADE04.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Bitmaps vs vectors (5/10/2007 2:50:04 AM)

Just for chuckles, this unit appears in every scenario that includes the Japanese.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/205DC369A7CC4CE4834C663B280F81B1.jpg[/image]



Neilster -> RE: Bitmaps vs vectors (5/10/2007 6:43:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here are many (but not all) of the City Based Volunteers.

The colors for the interior symbol (outline and center) are based on the 'country' that controls the city at the beginning of the war.

So, Vladivostok is based on Siberians colors, not the USSR colors. Likewise, Vlassov is using Ukrainian colors (for Kiev).

I also changed the outline color for the interior symbol to black or white if it was the same as the owning country. The interior of the USA's Naples garrison is actually Italian green, though visually that is hard to believe.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/49530B3B01E74E65A85D35DFED31FD57.jpg[/image]


I will be ordering these units to hold at all costs! Not one more step back! The offices, factories and schools will be emptied to provide citizen-soldiers for this glorious task. Every hand that can hold a rifle, carry ammunition or help dig an anti-tank ditch will be pressed into heroic service! My flying courts-martial will perform sweeps, and any deserters, cowards or defeatists will be be strung up from the lampposts as a warning to those whose belief in final victory is wavering! [:-]

Meanwhile, I'll be high-tailing it out on my heavily guarded, luxurious train; along with a few cronies, classy tarts and some artworks and other trinkets I've managed to acquire. [:'(]

Cheers, Neilster

[image]local://upfiles/10515/3541E4B9FF604358A9D78A9FE2E22ECE.jpg[/image]



Peter Stauffenberg -> RE: Bitmaps vs vectors (5/10/2007 10:50:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
So, Vladivostok is based on Siberians colors, not the USSR colors. Likewise, Vlassov is using Ukrainian colors (for Kiev).


I noticed a spelling error on the counter for the Andrey Vlasov counter. It's correct to write Vlasov with only one L, not 2 L's. Look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Vlasov

Germans write Wlassow for this Soviet General, but that's another story.



mlees -> RE: Bitmaps vs vectors (5/10/2007 4:40:26 PM)

quote:

This document was maded from the latest FAQ, adding all still relevant questions from the Clarifications document, adding new questions found here and there. This is this document that I called "our FAQ". It is not yet public, and still has to be brought in front of Harry, who agreed to have a look at it. It is in Excel form, and it will be trivial to put it into a text form with the question and the answer from Harry for each question.


Ah! Thanks. :)



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Bitmaps vs vectors (5/10/2007 9:05:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
So, Vladivostok is based on Siberians colors, not the USSR colors. Likewise, Vlassov is using Ukrainian colors (for Kiev).


I noticed a spelling error on the counter for the Andrey Vlasov counter. It's correct to write Vlasov with only one L, not 2 L's. Look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Vlasov

Germans write Wlassow for this Soviet General, but that's another story.


You meant one 's' not two?

From the reference you gave, an alternative spelling is Vlassov. I think I'll stay with what ADG used in this case.

In Russian: Àíäðåé Àíäðååâè÷ Âëàñîâ; alternative transliterations of his names appear as Andrei Andreievich or Andreevich and as Vlassov or (in German) Wlassow.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Bitmaps vs vectors (5/12/2007 6:18:39 AM)

Here's a setup screen from Lebensraum. It is noteworthy (at least to me) because the ASW Escort unit was randomly selected according to the setup data - with the Convoys in Flames optional rule turned on. That is something new that is now working. I'll have to run a few more trials to see if I can get a ASW Carrier unit randomly selected (it should come with a CVP and pilot).

[image]local://upfiles/16701/3894211FBBD74740AB39123B4E71054A.jpg[/image]



npilgaard -> RE: Bitmaps vs vectors (5/12/2007 12:05:35 PM)

Looks very nice.
All those screen shots coming up don't help on the patience regarding waiting to play a game of MWiF [:)]

Btw, is that randomly selected ASW unit chosen by the 'new' random number generator... [;)]

On a side note (apologies if you have discussed this already in another thread):
I assume that the white number in black box above the units/stacks tell how many units in that stack. Don't know if you need the space above the stacks for something else (eg like the green dot), but if not maybe 3 sets of numbers could be displayed (maybe in different colours), telling how many land units/air units/naval units, instead of only numbe (total number of units).
I think that would make it easier to quickly get an overview of own (or enemy) units. And often one is looking for units of one only (ie in a naval action and at the naval unit movement step, what is important is mostly where the naval units are located, and not so much where the land units are; or when flying air missions - where are the enemy FTRs located).



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Bitmaps vs vectors (5/12/2007 12:12:22 PM)

Space is very tight. There are potentially a row of counters across the top and down the left side - status indicators. They cover things like whether the unit has moved/can move/has movement points remaining, is on board a ship/air transport, is transporting another unit, has been instructed to attack, etc.

I don't believe there any room remaining actually.

One possibility is to permit a filtered display of units (e.g., just fighters). I'll think about that.



Froonp -> RE: Bitmaps vs vectors (5/12/2007 12:38:34 PM)

quote:

I assume that the white number in black box above the units/stacks tell how many units in that stack. Don't know if you need the space above the stacks for something else (eg like the green dot), but if not maybe 3 sets of numbers could be displayed (maybe in different colours), telling how many land units/air units/naval units, instead of only numbe (total number of units).

VERY good idea IMO.



npilgaard -> RE: Bitmaps vs vectors (5/12/2007 6:41:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Space is very tight. There are potentially a row of counters across the top and down the left side - status indicators. They cover things like whether the unit has moved/can move/has movement points remaining, is on board a ship/air transport, is transporting another unit, has been instructed to attack, etc.

I don't believe there any room remaining actually.


I somewhat expected something like that - lots of info needs to be available to the player at a glance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
One possibility is to permit a filtered display of units (e.g., just fighters). I'll think about that.


Good idea - a quick and easy way to turn filters on/off would work very well, I think - would provide the (perhaps much needed) quick overview of enemy FTRs when doing air missions etc.



Jimm -> RE: Bitmaps vs vectors (5/12/2007 6:47:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Just for chuckles, this unit appears in every scenario that includes the Japanese.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/205DC369A7CC4CE4834C663B280F81B1.jpg[/image]


I know that this was discussed some days back, but wouldnt it be clearer to have colour of the controlling county being more prominent than the country of origin colour?

The controlling country is the game critical information, country of origin is really just a "nice to know" level of data.

I have a fear that the proposed as is will be an added confusion for new players and the source of some potentially frustrating player mistakes when in the midst of battle.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Bitmaps vs vectors (5/12/2007 9:25:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimm
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Just for chuckles, this unit appears in every scenario that includes the Japanese.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/205DC369A7CC4CE4834C663B280F81B1.jpg[/image]


I know that this was discussed some days back, but wouldnt it be clearer to have colour of the controlling county being more prominent than the country of origin colour?

The controlling country is the game critical information, country of origin is really just a "nice to know" level of data.

I have a fear that the proposed as is will be an added confusion for new players and the source of some potentially frustrating player mistakes when in the midst of battle.

The problem is that many different units (basically the all the naval units) can be captured by many different major powers. This in combination with the bitmap graphics being drawn specifically for each naval unit creates the difficulty in doing what you suggest. We would need each naval unit to be drawn for each major power (different color), or ~6000 new bitmaps for the naval units.

As shown here, the new color (red for Japanese) is placed such that it does not touch the original bitmap. The same is true for the lend leased air units and any 'loaned' units that occur during game play.

I am not too worried about these being misunderstood. Captured units are quite rare, are always naval units, and the country of the captured unit rarely has any remaining naval units. [Though keeping Free French versus Vichy French units straight does cause me some concern.]



Page: <<   < prev  30 31 [32] 33 34   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.109375